Reading the negative comments about Campen reminds me, there are two separate topics here kinda rolled into one:

A run first philosophy, or even a balance between passing and running, which I absolutely oppose given the fact that we have such a great QB - I still say, use the pass intensively to set up the run as a change of pace or threat basically to make the passing game more effective.

The other topic, though, is the poor quality O Line - which is a severe detriment to BOTH the running game and passing game. In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the Campen detractors. True, we have had fairly extreme bad luck with injuries, but the larger point is that Campen has been poor at developing O Linemen both in terms of run blocking and pass blocking.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans. If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

The point is that this is Thompson's NINTH year as the GM making decisions about the line.

It isn't just this year that he hasn't had an offensive line with major question marks. IT IS THE NINTH.

By the ninth year he shouldn't be dependent on not losing starters. Very few teams go an entire season without having to replace starter(s) on the OL.

Look. I was happy when I saw Daryn Colledge drafted. But he turned out to be, despite Zero's continued hero worship, nothing better than a servicable starter. A Newhouse-level guard if you will.

Before Bulaga got hurt, all we had was one "really good camp" to go on whether he actually would have worked as a starting LT. Frankly, given his inconsistency at RT, that's a pretty big leap of faith in my opinion.

And the leap of faith re: Sherrod is even better. Sure, he was a #1. So was Tony Mandarich. We have even less grounds for being certain of his success uninjured than we have for Bulaga right now.

Ted has had one home run on the OL since he got here. Sitton.

In nine years. Despite the attention you and others are right to point out he has given the positions in the draft. Nine years, one home run.

How many OLs do I think would have been better than GBs OL did they have Sherrod and Bulaga? Based on TT/MM/JC's track record in their time here -- no less than 20 with a fair bet that it would be 25 or more.

Before 2010 I was increasingly disenchanted with TT. But 2010 convinced me that he should be the GM for a very long time.

But I still think "assessing OL talent" is his Achilles heel. If I were Mark Murphy, I'd be asking him when he's going to shake up the team's scout/personnel people with regard to how they do OL evaluation.

First off, Mike was asking for "smaller, quicker" linemen those first 5 years. Since then, Ted's batting average has increased considerably.

I mean really. We're starting our 3rd and 4th T's. How many teams could do that without having to make a desperate trade? Not only that, but we have a 5th guy who can swing to either side and be effective. Plus there's also Lang who's proven he can get it done at T if necessary.

Shit dude, wtf more do you want? Five pro bowlers at the position?

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Reading the negative comments about Campen reminds me, there are two separate topics here kinda rolled into one:

A run first philosophy, or even a balance between passing and running, which I absolutely oppose given the fact that we have such a great QB - I still say, use the pass intensively to set up the run as a change of pace or threat basically to make the passing game more effective.

The other topic, though, is the poor quality O Line - which is a severe detriment to BOTH the running game and passing game. In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the Campen detractors. True, we have had fairly extreme bad luck with injuries, but the larger point is that Campen has been poor at developing O Linemen both in terms of run blocking and pass blocking.

Another issue is that the offensive philosophy does nothing to help this OL.

First of all, let's see some screens. No, not swinging it out to the WR when the CB is playing off. I'm talking about getting Franklin in space with some blockers out front. Slow that DL down. Make them think twice about going straight at the passer. This will also cause them to pursue sideline to sideline, wearing them down as the game goes on.

Second of all, let's get some time of possession. Keep that defense on the field. They'll get tired, like our guys did against the Niners.

So yeah, there are issues. Especially with Campen, imo. But come on man. We know we have a weak spot on our team, why make it more glaring? Why not help those guys out a little? Help the defense out too, by keeping them fresh. Two birds with one stone.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

You always hear announcers and analysts talking about how you need to get a RB lathered up, that they get better as the game goes on. That is actually incorrect.

The reason backs and running games get better as the game goes on is because the offensive line wears down the defensive front so there are bigger holes. What needs to get lathered up is the Oline, the more they run block, the better they become because defensive lineman tire more when being pushed back, rather than them pushing forward.

Another issue is that the offensive philosophy does nothing to help this OL.

First of all, let's see some screens. No, not swinging it out to the WR when the CB is playing off. I'm talking about getting Franklin in space with some blockers out front. Slow that DL down. Make them think twice about going straight at the passer. This will also cause them to pursue sideline to sideline, wearing them down as the game goes on.

Second of all, let's get some time of possession. Keep that defense on the field. They'll get tired, like our guys did against the Niners.

So yeah, there are issues. Especially with Campen, imo. But come on man. We know we have a weak spot on our team, why make it more glaring? Why not help those guys out a little? Help the defense out too, by keeping them fresh. Two birds with one stone.

To a very limited extent, I agree with you, but for the most part, what you are talking about is IMO too much of a departure from what got us the offensive success we have. Screens and maybe draws, yes, but reining in Aaron Rodgers from allegedly taking too much time to get rid of the ball? I don't think so. I WANT him to throw it down the field - avoid this WCO bullshit. As for time of possession, I'd rather score quick. The crap of running on first and sometimes even second down last game and at times in the past - obviously aimed at placating the run first/time of possession crowd not only cost the Packers series and maybe the game; It did not even achieve the desired result of longer possessions, as 3 and out takes less time than pass pass pass down the field. Game clock time of possession is not the same as real time your D is resting on the bench.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans. If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

To a very limited extent, I agree with you, but for the most part, what you are talking about is IMO too much of a departure from what got us the offensive success we have. Screens and maybe draws, yes, but reining in Aaron Rodgers from allegedly taking too much time to get rid of the ball? I don't think so. I WANT him to throw it down the field - avoid this WCO bullsh!t. As for time of possession, I'd rather score quick. The crap of running on first and sometimes even second down last game and at times in the past - obviously aimed at placating the run first/time of possession crowd not only cost the Packers series and maybe the game; It did not even achieve the desired result of longer possessions, as 3 and out takes less time than pass pass pass down the field. Game clock time of possession is not the same as real time your D is resting on the bench.

Game clock also gives Kaepernick THAT MANY more plays.

If the time was even, Kaepernick gets 1/3 fewer plays. 1/3 fewer yards is 264 yards. That's not a bad defensive day. We win if that's all he gets, imo.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Redskins are not The 49r's, in fact they are pretty beat up already on the defensive side.

BOOK IT!!!!!!

Those of you who have him in FFL better not sit his ass!!!

I wouldn't go that far, but I think Lacy has a really good chance to go for 100-plus rushing yards. The Redskins are not a good defense, even when healthy. They can't stop the run. They can't stop the pass. There's no reason why Green Bay shouldn't pounce early and use Lacy to wear them down in the fourth quarter.

This is going to be hard to be patient with but it will have to be endured. This season is transitional in every phase of the game. I hope by the end of it we are playoff bound and then can put the growth to good use. Right now, both sides of the ball are a work in process. The league is changing. We are a bit behind but not as far behind as most other teams. It might suck that the NFC is now tougher but at the same time, it is pretty awesome to know that we are in the top echelon of teams in the league. Now that we got week 1 out of the way, let's focus on winning our division!

First off, Mike was asking for "smaller, quicker" linemen those first 5 years. Since then, Ted's batting average has increased considerably.

I mean really. We're starting our 3rd and 4th T's. How many teams could do that without having to make a desperate trade? Not only that, but we have a 5th guy who can swing to either side and be effective. Plus there's also Lang who's proven he can get it done at T if necessary.

sh!t dude, wtf more do you want? Five pro bowlers at the position?

Nah, only three.

I want a dominant line. The best quarterback in the league deserves a dominant line. The most important team in the league deserves a dominant line. The best sports fans in the known universe deserve a dominant line.

Even if Bulaga were completely healthy, even if the Packers had zero injuries on the OL all year, this OL corps would not be dominant. Yah, we're starting T's #3 and #4. Why are you so convinced that said #1 and #2 are good enough if they are healthy.

IMO, and I said this back in February or whenever GB decided on the switch of Bulaga and Sitton to the other side, even had there been no injuries, the team was going to be entering training camp with substantial questions at four of the five OL positions (arguably 5, but I was and am willing to assume that Sitton would still be a stud despite the switch). That should not be the case entering year nine.

And, no, Thompson does not get a pass from me for those first years because Mike McCarthy wanted small/quick OL. Two reasons: i. GM hires coach, not coach dictates to GM. 2. He didn't get good small/quick OL either. Guy McIntyre was small but a very good OG, even when he played for us; a young Guy McIntyre could be a great OL today. Same for Gale Gillingham. And that's just guys whose names start with G.

When Mike McCarthy wanted the small guys, he didn't provide good enough ones. After Mike McCarthy changed his mind, he still hasn't provided enough good ones.

If you are content with "servicable" or "good enough" on the OL, you need to be aiming higher. I give Ted Thompson an A for effort at creating the proper line. But performance provides the grade.

Strive to be good enough, and you end up third rate. Strive to D O M I N A T E!

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.